Testimony of Gary RuskinDirector of the Congressional Accountability ProjectBefore the U.S. House of RepresentativesCommittee on Government ReformSubcommittee on Government Management, Information and TechnologyMay 24, 1999

Thank you for inviting me to testify before the Subcommittee on Government
Management, Information and Technology regarding whether the salary of
the President of the United States should be increased.

The President's salary has remained unchanged for more than thirty years
-- since January 20, 1969. The President earns a salary of $200,000 per
year, with a generous pension, perquisites, a $50,000 expense allowance,
living expense benefits that befit a king, plus a near certain prospect,
if desired, of becoming a multimillionaire upon leaving office. The value
of a presidential pension is $152,000 annually in fiscal year 1999.(1)

On May 14, the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Treasury, Postal
Service and General Government approved a chairman's mark with a provision
to double the President's salary to $400,000 per year. That pay raise,
if approved, would take effect in 2001, because the Constitution forbids
the President's salary to be adjusted during his or her term of office.(2)

Since the founding of the Republic, it has been customary for the President,
who is the chief executive of the federal government, to receive the highest
salary in the federal government. As other top federal government salaries
have risen to approach an unchanged presidential salary, the President's
salary now increasingly functions as a cap on the salaries of Members of
Congress and federal judges. Some federal judges and Members of Congress
criticize the cap. They complain of "pay compression" at the top of the
federal pay scale.(3) They want a raise
-- presumably a large one.

That is why we are here today. The real question for today's hearing
is: does the presidential salary cap serve citizens well?

I think it does. The Congressional Accountability Project opposes a
presidential pay raise, not only because the President does not need a
raise, but, more importantly, because it would decrease the President's
moral authority to govern, and lift the salary cap at the top of the federal
pay scale, which restrains the energetic efforts of Members of Congress
and federal judges who wish to further raise their salaries at taxpayer
expense.

The public is best served by a presidential salary level that draws
the most talented, good-hearted and public-spirited people to the presidency.
The level should not be so low as to predispose a President to fall prey
to the highest bribery. Nor should it be so low as to exclude all but the
wealthiest citizens. But these problems do not affect the presidency at
this time.

The complaints of "pay compression" occur against a backdrop of overgenerous
and rising salaries for corporate CEO's(4)
and many corporate lawyers,(5) but stagnant
salaries and wages for a great many Americans. Of course, the public does
not clamor to raise the President's salary. Neither does President Clinton,
for that matter.

It would be wrong if the President's salary were so low that it discouraged
the best, most honorable Americans from running for President. But, to
the overwhelming majority of Americans, $200,000 per year plus enormous
living expense benefits is a great sum of money. The President suffers
no real privations. The President does not need more money, except to pay
legal bills. We have no lack of exceptionally bright and talented people
in this country who would be happy to serve as President for $200,000 per
year.

Those people who would serve as President only if the salary were higher
are less interested in doing service than in getting rich. We have no need
for the greedy in the highest offices of our federal government. In fact,
we ought to weed them out aggressively. Good riddance. Let them be the
wealthy captains of industry, or lobbyists on K street. The honest pleasures
of serving the public, of diligently attending to their needs, and earning
their respect, as well as a generous $200,000 annual salary, is adequate
compensation for the President.

It is mostly people who have adopted the values of the corporation who
call for this pay raise. But the public sector is very different from the
private sector. This makes comparisons between the President's salary and
a corporate CEO's a case of apples and oranges.

The President's salary and benefits are furnished by the taxpayers,
more than 99% of whom earn far less than the President. The taxpayers work
hard to fill the coffers of the federal government. It is wrong for the
differential between the President's salary and the median American's to
grow larger than it is, because such a high Presidential compensation package
begins to look as if the President were taking advantage of the taxpayers.
It erodes the President's moral authority to govern.

To make matters worse, the pay raise boosters propose a 100% increase
in the President's salary. This raise is not to $250,000, or $300,000,
or even $350,000 per year -- but a full doubling of the President's salary.
Try explaining that to a worker who hasn't seen a real salary increase
in a generation.

Everything the President does sets the moral tone for America. What
tone will the President set -- profligate or self-restrained? This country
is crying out for leadership by example. The President draws a salary from
a federal government that is currently $5.6 trillion in debt. If we are
to reduce the federal debt, the upper reaches of government must lead by
example, and sacrifice for the good of our country. That means the President
first. Our nation's frugality should begin in the President's home.

Citizens are pleased when their elected leaders show some dignified
self-restraint and humility, and forgo a pay raise. Their wallets are thinner,
but their moral authority grows. This intangible virtue is very important.

As I mentioned before, this effort to increase the President's salary
is driven by Members of Congress and federal judges who wish to lift the
presidential salary cap. Members of Congress currently earn an annual salary
of $136,700, plus generous perks, pensions and benefits. Federal district
court judges earn the same. Appellate court judges earn $145,000 per year.
Many Members of Congress and federal judges chafe under these salaries,
even though they are lavish.

In March, a wave of avarice swept the upper reaches of our federal government.
The U.S. Judicial Conference announced that it would "vigorously seek"
pay raises for federal judges, and that it also would work to increase
the salaries for Members of Congress and the President.(6)

At the same time, the public was met with news reports that some House
Members want to raise their salaries and cash benefits by as much as $25,000
per year. House Administration Committee Chairman Bill Thomas wants to
allow House Members to receive a tax-free $125 per diem, worth perhaps
$18,000 to $20,000 per year, from their congressional office budgets.(7)
The Thomas per diem plan would amend the rules governing Members Representational
Allowances. It could be approved in the Administration Committee, and would
not require a House floor vote.

In addition, both House Speaker Dennis Hastert and Minority Leader Richard
Gephardt are also supporting a proposed $4,600 pay raise for Congress this
year.(8) On May 16th, House Majority
Whip Tom DeLay said that "we're working very hard" to pass this congressional
pay raise.(9)

The presidential salary cap serves a useful public function in counteracting
such efforts. It should not be lifted. That is especially true regarding
its effect on congressional salaries.

Congressional salaries are already so high that they attract not only
the most honorable people to Congress. It is perhaps inevitable that the
power of Congress lures not only candidates who are wise and honest, but
also those who wish to exercise power. When congressional salary is set
too high, as it is now, it lures the greedy, selfish and the power-hungry,
in addition to those who merely wish to serve their country, and are deserving
of the public trust.

Many Members of Congress receive large raises when they come to Congress.
A 1996
Roll Call study found that "all but six of the 73 newly elected
House Members will receive large pay hikes when they take office" compared
with their previous employment.(10)

At this time, any further increase in Congressional salaries would lead
to decreased quality of candidates for Congress. This negative effect of
excessive congressional salaries on the quality of our Members of Congress
is not so strong as the negative effects of our corrupt campaign finance
system, but we ought to be concerned about it.

During the last ten years, House Members gave themselves five pay raises,
Senators six. Congressional salaries grew by $47,200 -- more than $15,000
above
inflation. In 1989, the base congressional salary was $89,500.

Many Americans haven't been so fortunate. The median income for full-time,
year-round male workers was higher in 1970 ($35,691) adjusted for inflation,
than it was in 1997 ($35,248).(11) The
median income in families where the wife is not in the paid labor force
was higher in 1969 ($36,170) adjusted for inflation, than it was in 1997
($36,027).(12) That means many families
haven't had a real wage increase in more than a generation. If so many
Americans have not received a real salary increase for so long, then Members
of Congress do not deserve yet another raise either.

The President, Members of Congress and federal judges ought to lead
by example, and sacrifice so that their moral authority might grow. They
will be the richer for it, and so will the citizenry, in a way that is
far more important than money.

2. U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 1: "The
President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation,
which shall neither be encreased nor diminished during the Period for which
he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period
any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them."

3. Joan Biskupic, "Judicial Group Favors One Less
D.C. Judgeship; 69 New Court Seats Urged, Along With Resource Shift." The
Washington Post, March 17, 1999.

4. "Thanks to a pay structure that has linked most
executive compensation to the stock market through huge option grants,
the head honcho at a large public company made an average $10.6 million
last year. That's a 36% hike over 1997 -- and an astounding 442% increase
over

the average paycheck of $ 2 million pocketed in 1990." Jennifer Reingold
and Ronald Grover, "Executive Pay." Business Week, April 19, 1999.

5. "Good news for in-house lawyers: corporate counsel
positions in New York are

more lucrative than ever....A survey of chief legal officers in Manhattan
corporations shows median total cash compensation of salary and bonus rising
over the past six years to $487,500 last year, up 60 percent from 1993."
Anna Snider, "In-House Pay Rises; Salary Plus Bonus Equals Hefty Compensation."
New
York Law Journal, February 11, 1999. See also Susan Orenstein, "Down
& Out On $100,000 A Year." The American Lawyer, October, 1998.

6. Joan Biskupic, "Judicial Group Favors One Less
D.C. Judgeship; 69 New Court Seats Urged, Along With Resource Shift." The
Washington Post, March 17, 1999.